& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Bad politics still rules our lives

Are calls for political consensus sincere?
RECENTLY the ruling BNP leadership has been highlighting the need for political consensus on important national issues. This is sensible thinking. However, this is not backed up by sensible politics. The ruling coalition, especially the BNP, continues its extremely highhanded behaviour against the opposition. The recent police assault on a procession of the student wing of the opposition Awami League is a clear proof of the insincerity of the ruling coalition's wish of a political consensus on fundamental political issues. Is it realistic to expect that the opposition will sit across the table when its student activists are being brutalised on the streets?
A more fundamental question. Why were they not allowed to hold a protest demonstration? Isn't holding such a protest march part of our constitutional right? Yes, police can intercept or even baton charge such a march if they start becoming rowdy and indulge in lawlessness. To the best of our knowledge the protest march was assaulted right at the start. It was a case, as it has been under the previous regime, of arrogant use of power by the ruling party to try to demoralise the opposition through brute force of the state. Such an attitude does not produce political consensus.
While the ruling party is arrogant, the opposition continues to be irresponsible. The most regrettable manifestation of which is in the refusal to participate in the committee formation process in the parliament. The difference, we understand, has now boiled down to chairmanship of some committees that the opposition want and the government does not. The latter's argument is that since the AL, while in power, did not give the opposition any chairmanship, why should the BNP do it. The habit of following the worst aspect of our opponent still dominates our actions.
Chairmanship or not, the opposition has greatly damaged the parliamentary process by not helping the early formation of the parliamentary standing committees. We are nearly into the second year of this parliament, and two out of five years of its term -- meaning 40 per cent of tenure -- have already elapsed without the parliamentary committees. We know that the real work of a parliament is done in those committees. The opposition's actions are rooted in its belief that not going to the parliament is depriving the government of its legislative legitimacy. Such mentality also leads to frequent boycott which, thankfully, the AL appears to have abandoned at the moment.
The opposition in its obsession to hurt the ruling coalition has not been able to understand the fact that the parliament is the House of the People, and not of the government, and it is here that the opposition has the best chance of serving the people by using the floor of the parliament to bring into public focus issues of grave public concern, and who does not know that there are plenty of them. The opposition may say that they have not been given sufficient time to speak. But can that justify not giving their nominations for membership in committees? By now so much important committee work could have been completed if they could have started at the outset.
To break this government-opposition stalemate, we have always argued that the government party must come more than half way. We said so when AL was in power, we say so now. But as the AL refused to listen, so does the BNP. Once in power our ruling parties believe that they will be there forever.
Arrogance, ego, desire to crush rather than cooperate with the other side, and extreme partisanship rules our political life. We regretfully notice that though the governmental players have changed, the ruling parties have changed, but the politics has not. It continues to be dominated by the singular aim of partisanship and not patriotism. Greed, corruption, abuse of power and self-destructive policy of replacing professionals with sychophants appear to dominate the government's actions. Corruption is becoming uncontrollable simply because there is no attempt to contain it but only to see how 'our men' benefit from it and not the others.
After 12 years of democracy, three elections and so many mistakes from which any sensible and intelligent political leadership could have easily learnt, we are blindly circling around the same old political follies.